Philosophy Now Forum

As title says. Is it possible for something of this thing we call "reality" to exist purely in mathematical or logical form, or is that some kind of necessary metaphysic we apply to understand that which is really the true "reality"?

Example for thought: if I see a box, and I measure it to about 1 metre, then afterwards I solve an equation on a piece of paper which deals with the behaviour of the box under certain conditions. Is this box, in my head and which I predict the transformations of, anything to do with "reality"? Or is it something outside of reality and that reality doesn't enter before I've actually done something to the box? Or otherwise?

The Voice of Time wrote:As title says. Is it possible for something of this thing we call "reality" to exist purely in mathematical or logical form, or is that some kind of necessary metaphysic we apply to understand that which is really the true "reality"?

Example for thought: if I see a box, and I measure it to about 1 metre, then afterwards I solve an equation on a piece of paper which deals with the behaviour of the box under certain conditions. Is this box, in my head and which I predict the transformations of, anything to do with "reality"? Or is it something outside of reality and that reality doesn't enter before I've actually done something to the box? Or otherwise?

Plato would tell you that mathematical objects are more real than 'physical' things,that's his theory of the 'forms'. We in this world only see imperfect things that are based on the timeless/changeless perfect blueprints. It as though, he claims, we are stuck in a cave looking at the shadows cast by reality. My gut instinct is that you can only count something as real if it can demonstrated to have an effect on the world that we see directly; I really see things, because real photons are really hitting my real retina and so on. Generally, I think the most obvious answer is the one you should accept, until you have 'real' evidence to demand otherwise. Karl Popper though was much more sophisticated than me; he argued that the stuff you describe in your head is real for precisely that reason; because if you do something to the box based on your thoughts, they have affected the 'real' world.

Karl Popper made an excellent remark there, the realness of something because it affects.

Sorry Bill, I've looked at it, tried to work it out, but I don't understand what you are trying to communicate. I understand your enthusiasm for images and agree that sometimes they can be more powerful than words. I appreciate that what Voice and I are talking about is of limited interest to others, but I don't understand what a scrolling series of digits that are vaguely suggestive means. I suspect that it is something like head fuck or mental masturbation. Do you have an image that can clarify? Alternatively, could you just say?

.



Is it possible for real things to only exist mathematically?


I think I wanted to show something existing - made out of numbers...mathematically. Showing a real thing existing only mathematically.



Showing something existing only mathematically. Made out of numbers.


Wow...was it that much of a st reach?






...........................................................................................................








.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:

Is it possible for real things to only exist mathematically?


I think I wanted to show something existing - made out of numbers...mathematically. Showing a real thing existing only mathematically.

What do you think is the real thing that you have shown to exist?

.






I took a concept...a mathematical concept that, what I understood to be, was the thrust of this thread and made a metaphor out of it.

Nothing more.





.....................................................................................




Every thing, out here, is just an accident. You know that right?

This is the wall of the cave.




.

Care to say what 'mathematical concept' you were thinking about?

.





As title says. Is it possible for something of this thing we call "reality" to exist purely in mathematical or logical form, or is that some kind of necessary metaphysic we apply to understand that which is really the true "reality"?







................................................................






.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:As title says. Is it possible for something of this thing we call "reality" to exist purely in mathematical or logical form, or is that some kind of necessary metaphysic we apply to understand that which is really the true "reality"?

So which part did you not understand? As your picture does not address the issue. Still, I understand as by your own admission you've not read philosophy so I understand how difficult it must be for you.

http://i.imgur.com/0Izc8UL.jpg
Now, lets see, so far your subconscious as you has a puking drunk, an overcompensating closet dweller and now bestiality. Is there no end to your talents!

.



You may have to take-up that issue with the original poster...



The original poster created a philosophical concept, someone else created a GIF, I used that GIF as a metaphor in reflection towards - Is it possible for real things to only exist mathematically?

I see a basic flaw in the question vot that you may or may not recognize. Your question holds an underlying assumption that reality can be pinned down. Tiilingborn points this out as well via Plato, but there is something crucial missing still. Its difficult for philosophy to admit that our experience of reality is only by a small percentage encountered in the head. Math is merely super-refined thinking - Plato's pure forms pivot dangerously on static rationality, when our most qualitative experiences of reality lay in the realm of feeling; of simply being alive and sucking up life to the hilt. So to consider that reality can lie purely as math is a misadventure because its a false arena to attempt to place reality in to begin with - as though reality were static enough to contain and quantify anyway - because that is what you inevitably would be doing in associating reality with math or math with reality. Reality as a term is better suited and used as a verb than a noun; it is not able to be differentiated from infinity, but we somehow like to consider it finite.

Reality is very much life.

No
LAWS Yes.

Gravity is a real thing. redifine apriori.

If say gravity is not a thing. what is it?
A thing exists/
Gravity exists.
And next is. a thing has shape and form.. rubbish
A thing is anything that exists. independent of observation by us apes
math exists as a concept
a code to explain what is. without man it does not exist.. it is subjective
dependent of existance of man
Take away human math and nothing changes
take away gravity and this universe would unfurl and die in seconds.
sounds like a damn big thing to me.

the sum total of processing power of earth 10,000 terraflops. cannot hold the math to define a single flower dynamically.
exist mathematically?
what a joke

Bernard wrote:I see a basic flaw in the question vot that you may or may not recognize. Your question holds an underlying assumption that reality can be pinned down.

What does pinning down reality mean?